Download PDF
The claimant filed this complaint on 13th July 2012 against the defendants claiming jointly and severally against them as follows: 1. The sum of N20,000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira) only being general damage resulting from the tortuous invasion of the claimant’s interest by the defendants which constitute the tort that occasioned injury, loss of fame and property from their intentional tortuous act of trespass to person, or about or for relating to false imprisonment at the instance of the defendants that occasioned injury, loss of fame, liberty and property, psychological trauma, mental suffering and emotional stress. Accompanying the complaint is the statement of claim, witness statement on oath, name of witness and documents to be relied on at the trial. The defendants entered a conditional appearance, filed their statement of defence, counter claim, and copies of documents to be relied on the 30th July 2012. The court on the first day the case was mentioned 15th October 2012, suo moto raised the issue of jurisdiction and ordered counsel to address it on the issue. The claimants address is dated 24th October 2012 and filed same day while the defendants is dated 9th November 2012 but filed on the 12th November 2012. Learned counsel to claimant raised one issue for determination: Whether the circumstances of this case relates to the tortuous act of unlawful arrest and detention arose from the course of a workplace?. He submitted that a court must be competent to entertain a matter and that Jurisdiction is the basis on which a court entertains a case. He submitted that it is the claim of the plaintiff that determines jurisdiction and not the defendants defence. He cited Mustapha Alkali & Anor v Ali Alkali [2002] 1 NWLR (Pt 748) 464, Madukolu v Nkemdilim [1962] 2 SCNLR 341, A.G Federation v Guardian Newspapers [1999] 9 NWLR (Pt 618) 187, Garba v Shaba Int. (Nig) Ltd [2002] 1 NWLR (Pt 748)308, Mustapha v Governor of Lagos [1987] 2 NWLR (Pt 58) 539. He submitted that this matter falls within the provision of section 7(i) & (ii) of the NIC Act 2006 and section 254C(1) (a) of the 1999 Constitution as amended and therefore the court should assume jurisdiction. It was his contention that from the pleadings of the parties, the tortuous injury arose from the defendants workplace when he was wrongly accused of stealing and falsely imprisoned. He urged the court to entertain this matter. Learned counsel to the defendants raised one issue for determination: Whether this Honourable court has the jurisdiction to entertain the claimants cause of action (alleged tortuous act committed by the Police against the claimant)?. He submitted that for a court to determine if it has jurisdiction to entertain a cause of action, it must examine the claimants statement of claim as it is the claim of the claimant that determines jurisdiction. He cited A-G Anambra v A-G. Federation [1993] 6 NWLR (Pt 302) 692, Inah v Ukoi [2002] 9 NWLR (Pt 773) 563, Tukur v Govt of Gongola State [1989] 4 NWLR (Pt 117) 517. He referred to section 7(1) (a) (b) & (c) of the NIC Act 2006 and section 254C(1) (a) & (b) of the 1999 Constitution as amended and submitted that the claimants claim does not come within the jurisdiction conferred on the court by the NIC Act and the Constitution. He stated that the subject matter is an alleged tortuous act committed by the Police against the claimant 6 months and 18 days after the claimant had left the employment of the 1st defendants and the relief sought is for damages based on the alleged tortuous invasion of his interest. He urged the court to decline jurisdiction and strike out the suit. I have carefully considered the processes filed and the written submissions of the parties. It is trite law that it is the claim of the claimant which determines the jurisdiction of a court. See A-G. Anambra v A-G. Federation [1993] 6 NWLR (Pt 302) 692, Tukur v Govt of Gongola State [1989] 4 NWLR (Pt 117) 517. The jurisdiction of this court is today and in the main governed by section 254C(1) (a to l) (2), (3), (4) & (5) of the 1999 Constitution as amended and it is subject matter based. A close look at the claimants claim and pleadings does not reveal any feature of an employment or labour dispute. Rather it refers to an alleged tortuous act of trespass to the claimants person, loss of fame and false imprisonment. Section 254C(1) (a-l), (2) (3) (4) & (5) have not mentioned any of these subjects. If the intention of the legislature was to confer this court with jurisdiction to entertain such tortuous acts, it would have specifically mentioned same. I find that the claims of the claimant are not within the jurisdiction of this court. Consequently, I hereby decline jurisdiction to entertain this matter. This suit is hereby struck out. I make no order as to costs. Ruling is entered. ..……………………..……………… Hon. Justice O. A. Obaseki-Osaghae